The Durban climate conference : review of agreements and outstanding issues

(1)

UNITED NATIONS

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR AFRICA

AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION

Thirty-first meeting of the Committee of Experts Seventh meeting of the Committee of Experts

Meeting of the Committee of Experts of the 5^th Joint Annual Meetings of the AU Conference of Ministers of Economy and Finance and ECA Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 22–25 March 2012

Distr.: GENERAL

E/ECA/COE/31/23 AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) 20 March 2012

Original: ENGLISH

The Durban Climate Conference:

Review of Agreements and Outstanding Issues

(2)

1. Background - The Road to Durban

1. At the end of 2005, the first steps were taken to consider long-term issues with regards to climate-change negotiations. Held in Montreal, Canada, the first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) serving as the meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP-1) decided to establish the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) on the basis of Article 3(9) of the Protocol, which mandates consideration of Annex-I Parties’ further commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period. At the same time, COP-11 agreed to consider long-term cooperation under the Convention through a series of four workshops known as “the Convention Dialogue”, which continued until COP-13. COP-13 and MOP-3 took place in December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia.

2. Negotiations resulted in adoption of the Bali Action plan. Parties established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), with a mandate to focus on key elements of long-term cooperation identified during the Convention Dialogue: mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and a shared vision for long-term cooperative action. The Bali Conference also resulted in agreement on the Bali Road Map, based on two negotiating tracks under the Convention and the Protocol, and set a deadline for concluding the negotiations at COP-15 and MOP-5 in Copenhagen in December 2009.

3. At the COP-15/MOP-5 in Copenhagen, Parties adopted parallel decisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol that took note of the Accord and opened the way for Governments to voluntarily submit their mitigation pledges. At close examination, the Accord spoke to all of the core elements of the Bali Action Plan: a long-term goal; adaptation; mitigation; finance; technology; forests; and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Some of the specific elements of the Copenhagen Accord included: a declaration to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius and strengthening the long-term goal including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius;

developed countries (Annex-I) to ‘commit to economy-wide emissions targets for 2020’ and developing countries (non-Annex-I) to implement nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) to be submitted by 31 January 2010; mitigation actions taken by non-Annex-I Parties to be subject to domestic MRV and reported every two years; a collective commitment by developed countries for $30 billion in “new and additional” resources in 2010-2012 with

‘balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation’ and a goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year ‘from a wide variety of sources’ by 2020 to address developing-county needs, preserve forests through the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD), and adapt to climate change to ‘reduce vulnerability and build resilience in developing countries’.

4. The Accord also called for establishment of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, for a High-level Panel to examine ways of meeting the 2020 finance goal and for a Technology Mechanism ‘to accelerate technology development and transfer, guided by a country-driven approach’. Finally, the Accord endorsed continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore

(4)

advocated moving forward with negotiations under the two tracks of the AWG-LCA and AWG- KP.

5. COP-16/MOP-6 took place in Cancun, Mexico from 29 November to 10 December 2010, following four preparatory meetings in 2010. The conference adopted the Cancun Agreements, consisting of decisions under both negotiating tracks. The Agreements built directly on the Copenhagen Accord, hence importing the essential components of the Accord into the UNFCCC and thereby giving it legitimacy and the possibility of implementing some of the elements in the Accord. Moreover, the Cancun Agreements were instrumental in rehabilitating the UNFCCC process and solidified its central role in moving international climate policy and cooperation forward.

6. Negotiations continued through 2011. Three negotiating sessions of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP were held in 2011 with a view to reaching a binding agreement in late 2011 when the COP met in Durban, South Africa. The sessions took place in Bangkok (in April), Bonn (June) and Panama City (September). The Durban Conference should therefore be seen as part of the continual global effort to refine and strengthen the international collaborative and regulatory framework on climate change. This paper provides context on the negotiating process leading up to Durban and a summary of the Durban Platform, highlighting the implications of some of its elements for Africa.

2. Africa’s Position Going into Durban

7. Continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and operationalization of the Cancun Agreements were expected to determine the success of the Durban Conference. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol will come to an end at the end of 2012. Russia, Canada and Japan had declared their intention of not signing up to any legally binding quantified emission reduction targets, and achieving a second commitment period was expected to be a major challenge for Durban. This was further complicated by the fact that the remaining industrialized countries (particularly the European Union, New Zealand and Australia) had attached conditions, such as the need for the major emitters including the United States, China and India to join the framework.

8. It became clear before and during the conference that the European Union was not demanding that China, India and other major developing countries should take up legally binding reduction commitments in the second commitment period. However, it had made it clear that it would only “sign up to a second commitment period if other nations adopt a road map and timetable for agreeing on a comprehensive global (including all Parties, in particular all major economies) and legally binding climate deal in Durban”. That is, Europe would sign up to a second commitment period if the outcome also indicated when all major economies (including the United States) would join them.

9. The Common Position of the African Group was that a second commitment period is absolutely essential to the interests of Africa in that the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol constitute the fundamental global legal framework on climate change. The Committee of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC) underlined the need to engage

(5)

AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) Page 3 other actors with the purpose of urging a second commitment period. If, however, the second commitment period was not obtainable in Durban, the position of Africa was to work towards preserving at least the basic infrastructure of the Kyoto Protocol while concrete steps were being taken towards a new legally binding arrangement.

10. CAHOSCC underlined the importance of not reopening the discussion on climate finance and technology transfer. In relation to climate finance, there were and are complaints that developed countries have not fully complied with their pledge to provide new and additional fast- start finance; and that the $100 billion in long-term finance, which is not even adequate, might face the same fate,. However, considering the current financial and economic crisis prevailing in developed countries, raising such issues risked derailing the progress of the negotiations on other fronts.

11. The Cancun Agreements, apart from reaffirming the fast-start and long-term financial commitments of developed countries in the Copenhagen Accord, also established two important institutions: the Green Climate Fund and the Standing Committee on Finance. The design of the Global Green Fund was entrusted to a Transitional Committee. Just before Durban, the Transitional Committee completed its work and prepared a draft report to the Durban Conference. It was a report instead of a draft decision because the United States and Saudi Arabia had expressed disagreement with respect to some of its elements. At the CAHOSCC meeting, it was stated that the Transitional Committee’s report was consistent with the African Position. It was anticipated that some countries, namely the United States and Saudi Arabia, might wish to open the debate on the report, although they had given signals that they might not stand in the way of the adoption of the report.

12. In aiming to protect the African Common Position, CAHOSCC underlined that it was critical that all means should be deployed to prevent a debate on the report, and engage the two countries that had expressed their reservations on its content. However, if forced into a debate on the report, the African Group was urged to be prepared to negotiate. Hence, the one critical position of Africa going to Durban in relation to finance was to ensure operationalization of the Green Climate Fund and adoption of the COP Draft Report submitted by the Transitional Committee.

13. On the technology front, there were moves to introduce the issue of intellectual property rights (IPRs). The need to address IPRs as barriers to the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries was also included in Africa’s Common Position. However, considering the strong resistance of developed countries to engage in any negotiations related to IPRs, debating these issues in Durban risked derailing progress on other negotiation fronts. It had therefore been deemed in the interest of Africa that at Durban the focus should be on matters related to operationalization of the technology mechanism in the Cancun Agreements.

(6)

3. Key Outcomes of Durban

The Durban Platform

14. The conference in Durban was held over the period 29 November to 13 December 2011, overrunning the originally planned schedule by two days. The conference launched yet another platform for another round of negotiations and delivered decisions to implement many of the decisions in the Cancun Agreements and to have a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. From the African perspective, the conference was successful because it satisfied Africa’s two main expectations in going to Durban, i.e. adoption of the governing instrument of the Green Climate Fund and the second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol.

15. The Durban Conference established a subsidiary body known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, through which a process was launched “to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties”. It was decided that this subsidiary body should complete its work at the latest by 2015 so that there could be an adequate period of time to obtain the required ratifications for the outcome of the negotiations coming into effect from 2020.

16. The negotiations within this platform will cover issues relating to mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, transparency of action, and support and capacity- building. It is to be noted that in the Copenhagen Accord, the Parties reached a long-term goal of keeping the temperature rise below 2^oC above pre-industrial levels. The Cancun Agreements also provide for a process to review the long-term goal in 2013-2015 with the possibility of adopting 1.5⁰C as a long-term goal. Following Copenhagen, developed countries submitted quantified economy-wide mitigation pledges and developing countries submitted NAMAs.

17. There is now a scientific understanding that the cumulative effects of such pledges are inadequate for achieving the long-term goal.¹ The conference took note of this fact: “Noting with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2^oC or 1.5^oC above pre-industrial levels”.

18. In addressing this, the conference stipulated that the process launched “shall establish the level of ambition and shall be informed, inter alia, by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the outcomes of the 2013-2015 review and the work of the subsidiary bodies”. In connection with this, a decision was passed “to launch a work plan on enhancing the mitigation ambition, to identify and to explore options for a range of actions that can close the ambition gap with a view to ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts by all Parties”. The work plan involves an invitation to Parties and observers to submit, by

1 UNEP. Bridging the Emissions Gap: A UNEP Synthesis Report (2011).

(7)

AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) Page 5 28 February 2012, proposals on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition and on an in-session workshop at the first negotiating session in 2012.

19. Though not expressly mentioned in the relevant decision, it was expected that the outcome (protocol or legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force) will replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is worth recalling that the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that major developing countries were not subject to comparable commitments. Japan, Russia and Canada refused to sign up to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol for the same reason. Canada, a few days after the Durban Conference, decided to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol altogether.

20. The remaining Parties to the protocol with legally binding targets such as the European Union, Australia and New Zealand made their agreement to the second commitment period conditional upon the launching of the Durban Platform. In essence, the expected result would be applicable to all Parties. A process was also launched to increase the level of ambition of reduction targets and actions. However, the form of the reduction targets aimed at (whether absolute or relative), is not clear, nor the extent to which these targets will be differentiated among the countries

Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol

21. The Durban Conference also passed a decision to have a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The second commitment period, which will run from 1 January 2013, could be for a period of either five or seven years. The precise length will be determined by a decision of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex-I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its seventeenth session. It must be noted that the shorter option might open up a gap between the Kyoto Protocol and the coming into force of the outcome of the Durban Platform.

The aggregate target of the second commitment period is to ensure that aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases by Annex-I Parties are reduced by at least 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. Considering that Japan, Russia and Canada refused to sign up to the second commitment period and that the United States is not a party to the Protocol, it is not clear how this aggregate objective can be achieved.

22. The targets for each of the Annex-I countries which are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and which agreed to the second commitment period is provided in an annex to the decision. The Parties also agreed to convert such targets into quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives (QELROS) and communicate the result by 1 May 2012 for consideration by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex-I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its seventeenth session. The Working Group will submit the results of its work at COP-18/MOP-8 in Doha, Qatar, with a view to amending Annex-B of the Protocol.

23. One issue which relates to the second commitment period is the matter of surplus Assigned Amount Units, that is, the units of Kyoto gases that a party could emit in the first commitment period and which have not been used. The Ad Hoc Working Group is requested to assess the

(8)

implications of carrying these surplus units into the second commitment period and recommend appropriate actions to be taken to address them at the COP-18/MOP-8 climate talks in Doha.

24. The Kyoto Protocol covers a basket of six gases. The second commitment period may, however, add another gas (Nitrogen trifluoride) to the list if the proposal of an amendment to Annex-A of the Kyoto Protocol is accepted by the next conference.

The Green Climate Fund

25. The Cancun Agreements established the Green Climate Fund and the Standing Committee on Finance. The Fund is expected to administer a significant part of the $100 billion which developed countries have agreed to mobilize by 2020. The task of designing the Green Climate Fund was then given to a Transitional Committee. The Committee completed its task of developing the governing instrument of the Fund and reported to the conference. As discussed earlier, ensuring that the draft governing instrument is adopted by the conference was one of the two principal priorities of the African Group of Negotiators.

26. The Durban Conference approved the governing instrument of the Fund, which it has also designated as the operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention. It is envisaged that arrangements will be concluded between the Fund and the COP in Doha to ensure that the former is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the latter to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing countries. The COP will in future provide guidance to the Board of the Fund on such matters as policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria. The Board discharges its functions based on such guidance and reports to the COP.

27. During the negotiations, several issues relating to the Fund constituted points of divergence among Parties. For example, against the proposal by many of the developing countries, the United States advocated its firm belief that the Fund should not be accorded legal personality.

Eventually, however, the Conference decided that the Fund should have juridical personality and legal capacity. Other points of contention included the identity of the host country, the trustee and secretariat of the Fund.

28. The Conference also enumerated criteria for selection of who should host the Fund. The criteria included: ability to confer and/or recognize the Fund’s juridical personality and legal capacity; and ability to provide privileges and immunities to the Fund as necessary for fulfilment of its purposes and to the officials of the Fund as are necessary for the independent exercise of their official functions in connection with the Fund. Parties have been invited to submit expressions of interest to the Board for hosting the Fund by 15 April 2012.

29. The Board will make the selection in an open and transparent process, and present the result to the Conference for endorsement. Considering the no-objection procedure on the basis of which the COP operates, it will be necessary for the Board to not only carry out the selection in an open and transparent process, but also to substantiate such selection with reasons acceptable to all the Parties that had expressed interest in hosting the Fund. The Board is also charged with

(9)

AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) Page 7 several functions that will determine how quickly the Fund can start discharging its core purpose.

These functions include:

• Developing a transparent no-objection procedure to ensure consistency with national climate change strategies and plans and a country-driven approach, and to provide for effective direct and indirect public and private sector financing by the Fund.

• Balancing the allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation activities.

• Establishing necessary policies and procedures, which will enable an early and adequate replenishment process.

• Selection of the host country.

• Together with the host country, developing the legal and administrative arrangements for hosting the Fund and ensuring that juridical personality and legal capacity are conferred to the Fund and privileges and immunities as are necessary are granted to the Fund and its officials in an expedited manner.

• Establishing an independent secretariat of the Fund in the host country in an expedited manner.

• Selecting the trustee of the Fund through an open, transparent and competitive bidding process in a timely manner to ensure there is no discontinuity in trustee services.

• Initiating a process for collaborating with the Adaptation Committee and the Technology Executive Committee as well as other relevant thematic bodies under the convention, and to define linkages between the Fund and these bodies, as appropriate.

• Appointing the interim secretariat based on the criteria set by the Durban Conference.

30. The Board is an important part of the governance structure of the Fund. Its functions include but are not limited to approving funding decisions, developing environmental and social safeguards and fiduciary principles, developing criteria and application processes and implementing the same for accreditation of the implementing entities.

31. In addition, the Durban Conference decided that the interim secretariat would be an autonomous unit within the UNFCCC secretariat premises. The responsibility for taking the necessary steps to set up the interim secretariat is given to the UNFCCC secretariat and the GEF.

The interim secretariat will provide technical, administrative and logistical support to the Board

(10)

until an independent secretariat of the Fund is established. Though the Board will eventually choose the trustee, the Conference designated the World Bank as the interim trustee.

32. Pursuant to the decision by the Durban Conference, the Board will consist of 24 members divided equally between developed and developing countries. The Conference further determined how the membership quota for developing countries and negotiating clubs of Parties should be further disaggregated geographically. Africa will be represented by four members and LDCs by one member. It will be up to the groups of Parties such as Africa and LDCs to nominate their representatives but members are expected to have the necessary experience and skills in the areas of climate change and development finance. Due consideration should also be given to gender balance.

33. The Board will be chaired by two co-chairs, one from developed and another from developing countries, elected by the Board members. Reflecting how decisions are passed by the COP, it is provided that decisions by the Board will be passed by consensus. The Board is also tasked with developing procedures for adopting decisions in the event that unanimity cannot be reached and will develop and operate accreditation processes to allow for the participation of observers at its meetings. In particular, four active observers will be invited to participate—two civil society representatives and two private sector representatives.

34. The governing instrument of the Fund recognizes that both direct access through accredited national implementing entities and indirect access through accredited multilateral implementing entities will be the main access modalities. This is an improvement on the way the GEF operates, and mirrors the way the Adaptation Fund of the Kyoto Protocol functions. As a marked improvement on the latter, however, it also recognizes the need to provide resources for enhancing the capacity of the institutions of developing country Parties with a view to ensuring that they satisfy the fiduciary principles and standards and environmental and social safeguards which are prerequisites to accreditation. The Adaptation Fund allows the direct access modality.

35. As yet, only three national institutions in Africa² have been accredited by the Adaptation Fund. One reason for this is the inability of national institutions in Africa to satisfy the fiduciary standards which are prerequisites for accreditation. In this regard, the provision that mandates the Green Climate Fund to provide resources for enhancing the ability of institutions to meet the accreditation standards is an improvement.

Shared Vision for Long-term Cooperative Action

36. In the Cancun Agreements, Parties set a long-term global goal of ensuring that the temperature increase does not exceed 2^oC above pre-industrial levels. In addition, the Parties agreed to work towards identifying a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050. Further, towards identifying a time frame for global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available scientific knowledge and equitable access to sustainable development.

2 These include the South African National Institute for Biodiversity (SANBI), Senegal’s Centre for Ecological Monitoring and Benin’s National Environment Fund.

(11)

AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) Page 9 With respect to the latter, the Parties recognized that the timeframe for the peaking will be longer in developing countries.

37. In Durban, the Parties agreed to continue the work with respect to the global reduction goal and the timeframe for the global peaking of emissions. What is new in this regard is the agreement of the Parties that consideration of the global emissions reduction goal and the timeframe for the global peaking of emissions cannot be undertaken in the abstract and will necessarily involve matters related to the context for such considerations. The context comprises the Bali Action Plan, the ultimate objective of the Convention, best available scientific knowledge and equitable access to sustainable development.

38. The Conference requested the AWG-LCA to consider the issue of equitable access to sustainable development through a workshop at its next session and report the result back. This is problematic. The mandate of the AWG-LCA will be terminated at the next conference; however, the AWG-LCA is expected to report to the conference regarding the global goal of emission reductions and the timeframe for peaking of emissions. One of the factors to be considered in the determination of the timeframe is equitable access, a notion which is yet to be elaborated through a workshop during 2012. Therefore, it may not be possible for the global goal for reductions and the timeframe to be agreed at Doha. The most likely scenario is for the Durban Platform to take over this task.

Mitigation commitments by developed countries

39. In Cancun, the Parties, after recognizing mitigation targets submitted by developed countries following the Copenhagen Accord, urged them to increase their ambition with a view to reducing their aggregate emissions to a level consistent with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In addition, the secretariat was requested to organize workshops to clarify the underlying assumptions and conditions of such targets, including the use of carbon credits from the market-based mechanisms and land use, land-use change and forestry activities, and options and ways to increase their level of ambition. Two such workshops were organized in 2011 in Bangkok and Bonn.

40. The Durban Conference acknowledged the gap between the aggregate level of reduction expected from pledges by developing and developed countries and that needed to maintain the temperature rise below 2⁰C.³ The Conference reiterated its call on developed countries to increase the ambition of their targets to a level consistent with the Fourth and subsequent Assessment Reports of the IPCC. It also recognized that clarification of targets by developed countries builds confidence and trust among the Parties.

41. Accordingly, it was decided to continue the process of clarifications through workshops in 2012. The objective of the workshops is to understand the assumptions and conditions related to individual targets, in particular in relation to the base year, global warming potential values,

3 UNEP. Bridging the Emissions Gap: A UNEP Synthesis Report (2011).

(12)

coverage of gases, coverage of sectors, expected emissions reductions, and the role of land use, land-use change and forestry, and the use of offsets.

42. The Cancun Conference decided that developed countries should submit biennial reports detailing mitigation actions taken to achieve their reduction targets, the reductions achieved, projected emissions and the financial, technology and capacity-building support provided to developing countries. It also decided to develop guidelines for the biennial reports. The Durban Conference adopted guidelines on the preparation of biennial reports by developed countries.

43. The Cancun Conference established a process under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) for international assessment and review (IAR) of the biennial reports of developed countries. It also established a work programme for development of modalities and procedures for the IAR. The Durban Conference recognized that the IAR process should promote comparability of targets and performance among all developed countries. However, this should be done in an efficient, cost-effective and practical way without imposing an excessive burden on Parties and on the secretariat. It also decided that the process should comprise a technical review, the biennial report, and a multilateral assessment of implementation of targets. The Conference also adopted modalities and procedures for the IAR.

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by Developed Countries

44. The Cancun Conference took note of the NAMAs submitted by developing countries in accordance with the Copenhagen Accord. It agreed to discuss the NAMAs in workshops to aid further understanding of their diversity, the underlying assumptions and any support needed for implementation of the actions. The Durban Conference decided to continue efforts in 2012 through workshops to spread understanding of the diversity of mitigation actions by developing countries. Matters to be considered include underlying assumptions and methodologies, sectors and gases covered, global warming potential values used, support needs for implementation of the mitigation actions and estimated mitigation outcomes. The workshops are also meant to build confidence and trust among Parties and to share experience in the development of low-emission development strategies by developing countries.

45. The Cancun Agreements imposed a requirement on developing countries, to submit biennial reports containing updates of national greenhouse gas inventories, including a national inventory report and information on mitigation actions and needs and on support received. The Durban Conference adopted the guidelines for the biennial update reports.

46. The Cancun Conference had decided to set up a registry to record NAMAs seeking international support and to facilitate matching of support to these actions. It also launched a work programme for development of modalities and guidelines for facilitation of support to mitigation actions through the registry. The Durban Conference decided that the registry should be a dynamic, web-based platform managed by a dedicated team in the secretariat and structured in a flexible manner to accommodate the diversity of mitigation actions and a range of support types. Participation in the registry system would be voluntary and it should only record information submitted expressly for that purpose.

(13)

AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) Page 11

47. The Conference identified the information required from developing countries with respect to the mitigation actions for which they were seeking international support and also what information should be submitted by developed countries with respect to support available for provision to developing countries. The secretariat was charged with provision of assistance to developing countries seeking information on available sources of support in the registry. The secretariat was also requested to develop and present a prototype of the registry to the thirty-sixth session of the SBI with a view to improving its design.

48. At the Cancun Conference, it was agreed that internationally supported mitigation actions by developing countries would be subject to international MRV. Domestically supported mitigation actions would be measured, reported and verified domestically subject to international consultation and analysis. In addition, biennial update reports would be subject to international consultation and analysis. The Conference also launched a work programme for the development of modalities and guidelines for the international consultation and analysis.

49. The Durban Conference adopted these modalities and guidelines, which have the objectives of making the process efficient, cost-effective, non-intrusive, non-punitive and respectful of national sovereignty. The general guidelines for domestic measurement, reporting, and verification of domestically supported mitigation actions are yet to be developed by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).

REDD+

50. The Cancun Conference encouraged developing countries to contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities according to their respective capabilities and national circumstances: (a) reducing emissions from deforestation; (b) reducing emissions from forest degradation; (c) conservation of forest carbon stocks; and (d) sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. It was decided that these activities should be implemented in phases, beginning with development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures, and capacity-building, followed by implementation of the same. This could involve further capacity-building, technology development, and transfer and results-based demonstration activities, evolving into results-based actions that should make full use of MRV.

51. The AWG-LCA was charged with exploring the financing options for the full implementation of the results-based actions. The Durban Conference mandated the AWG-LCA to develop modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions and to report on progress made (including any recommendations) to the Conference in Doha.

The Adaptation Committee

52. The Cancun Adaptation Framework was established to enhance adaptation efforts by all countries. The Framework identified a broad set of priority areas for action. These included: (a) a process to assist LDCs to plan, prioritize and implement their adaptation actions; (b) improve

(14)

climate-related research and systematic observation and information management systems; (c) strengthen institutions; (d) support impact, vulnerability and adaptation assessments, including assessment of financial needs as well as evaluation of adaptation options; and (e) undertake transfer of technologies, practices and processes and capacity-building for adaptation.

53. As part of the framework, an Adaptation Committee was created to raise the importance of adaptation within the UNFCCC and to provide technical support to Parties to ensure a more coherent, action-oriented engagement with the issues. More specifically, the committee is mandated to promote implementation of enhanced action through: technical support and guidance; enhanced information sharing on good practices; promoting synergy and strengthening engagement of organizations, centres and networks; provision of information on good practices and best incentives for adaptation implementation and reduction of vulnerability; and considering communications by Parties on monitoring and review of adaptation actions with the aim of recommending further actions.

54. The AWG-LCA was tasked with elaborating the composition of the Adaptation Committee, as well as its modalities and procedures, for adoption by the Conference. The Durban Conference elaborated the composition and determined the modalities and procedures for the Adaptation Committee.

4. Concluding Remarks

55. The Durban Conference, despite overrunning by two days, eventually delivered on the two priority issues of Africa: adoption of the governing instrument of the Green Climate Fund and the second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol. The other outcome of the Conference, the launching of the Durban Platform, provided an opportunity for universal participation (not necessarily uniform in its form and content) which is necessary for preventing temperature rise beyond acceptable levels.

56. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be resolved and that require further negotiation. Africa should play an enhanced role at the conference and through other appropriate platforms to aid quick consensus building on sources of finance. In this regard, negotiations should draw insights from the report by the working group appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Fund should also be adequately capitalized. Representatives of Africa and LDCs on the Board should play a critical role in ensuring that the policies and arrangements necessary for the Fund to start delivering on its principal functions, namely, mobilizing and allocating financial resources, is adopted as quickly as possible.

57. The Review of the long-term temperature goal agreed at the Cancun Conference is another important concern for Africa, in ensuring that the global goal of temperature rise (2^oC) does not expose Africa to unacceptable risks. Therefore, the African Group of Negotiators, AMCEN and CAHOSCC should enhance their efforts to ensure that an agreement on the scope and other elements of the Review is reached as early as possible.

(15)

AU/CAMEF/EXP/23VII) Page 13 58. It is also important to ensure that amendments to the Kyoto Protocol are adopted by the end of 2012 and that there will not be a gap between the first and second commitment periods. In this light, therefore, it is important to support the African Group of Negotiators, AMCEN and CAHOSCC in their endeavours. This requires that the three main African institutions (AUC, UNECA and AfDB) coordinate and enhance the specific support required for the group. Through analysis of the Durban outcomes, and the issues yet to be determined in future negotiations, areas where further research support could be provided by UNECA through the African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC) should be agreed and implemented. AfDB plays an important role in providing financial support to the group with a view to ensuring its effective participation in negotiation and preparatory sessions. AUC also plays an important role in mobilization and provision of financial and other forms of support and in coordination of UNECA and AfDB efforts.